Depravity Of The Vatican

Nota Bene :What you are about to read may seriously chock you if you are a catholic. What I am going to share with you is in no
way meant to hurt your faith in God, but simply to dig in the darkest moments of the Vatican.

Depravity of the Vatican

Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, bloodthirsty conquerors, sadistic, immoral of all kinds, charlatans, wizards, inquisitors and much more
adjectives can be used to describe many popes that were once head of The Catholic Church. Having been of major importance in the history of the
Occidental culture, there was a time when The Church had immense powers in Europe. And these great powers once were in the hand of these men...

Pope Alexander VI

Described as one of the most outstanding Popes since St-Peter by his successors. The reign of the Pontifical Spanish Rodrigo Borgia from 1431 to 1503
and the details of his depravity is known to us through the witness of the bishop of Strasbourg John Burchard. Who kept a rigorous book describing
legendary orgies at the Vatican.

Father of at least six children (Joan, Caesar, Lucrezia Borgia and Geoffroy) Alexander IV was accused by the Florentine historian Francesco
Guicciardini of murdering the young captain Astorre Manfredi and having grandiose orgies in the Vatican. These excesses led to the rebellion of the
legendary monk Savonarola in Florence, who was later tortured and executed in 1498.

Permanent Debauchery at the papal court had climaxed around October 31, 1501. Burchard describes a lustful competition involving 50 prostitutes ,
Bishops and the children of the Pope. The children had to arbitrate the manly prowess of competitors, for the pleasure of their holy father. Numerous
diplomatic notes confirm the veracity of the event. It is even said that the Borgia Pope made ​​a pact with the devil.

Pope John XII

Gaining power of the Roman throne at the early age of about 17 years, John XII held a lot of attention by the number and gravity of the acts he
committed. During his reign, he was guilty in the eyes of his contemporaries of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery and incest.

He led the church intermittently for 9 years from 955 to 964, cutting the eyes, nose and ears of any Bishop who would dare stand against him. He
finally was deposed by the Germanic King Otto the Great in 964.

Pope Urban VI

Elected in 1377. Torturer,authoritarian, despotic and unloved, he had the habit of torturing horribly and killing his future successors. Obsessed
with conspiracies, carried on the bottle and considered crazy, he died isolated in 1389.

Pope Paul III

Paul III was Pope for 15 years between 1534 and 1549. He is known for creating the Jesuit order, Order of the current Pope. He was sexually attracted
to young boys and always kept a few of them in his bed at night.

Pope Paul IV

Famous for his corruption, debauchery and his use of simony. He extended the torture of suspects of Heresy to all the witnesses. He organized an
unprecedented persecution of Jews in the Papal States, imposing their confinement in ghettos and wearing a distinctive yellow cap.

Nota bene: I have nothing against homosexuality, I do on the other hand have problems with the lies and hypocrisy of the Vatican regarding
homosexuality within the Catholic Church.

Europa MultiClub

the Vatican spent $30 million to buy an apartment building in Rome that also houses Europa Multi Club, Europe biggest gay Sauna. Cardinal Ivan Dias of
India, who once said that gays can be cured of their gayness, lives in a fancy 12-room apartment right above Europa. Talk about hypocrisy.The Pope
resigned because of the gay ticking time bomb that is about to hit The Vatican.

Based on a number of witnesses who told of homosexual relations with priests of the Vatican. Carmelo Abbate a journalist investigated and infiltrated
the gay scene of Rome with hidden cameras. In one of the videos we see a priest who has no problem to take the religious habit and recite his prayers
after frolicking with another man.

Most of the videos shot by Carmelo Abbate are available on the internet but I will not link them here since they contain explicit images of priests
being filmed without knowing it inside gay clubs of Rome.

Crimen Sollicitationis

Crimen sollicitationis, written in 1962 by ex Pope Benedict XVI , at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, is a document detailing how the case of pedophilia
found within the Catholic Church should be dealt with. It indicates to bishops around the world how to proceed in case of sex crimes in the
confessional or outside.

The document states that the solicitation for lewd acts against minors, either by word or gesture is to be kept secret. The Instructions in the Crimen
Sollicitationis should be kept locked in the trunk of their church by bishops. It demanded absolute secrecy, both the priest and the victim, or
potential witnesses or persons notified. Failure of this oath meant excommunication.

[7] And they brought the colt to Jesus;
and they lay their garments
on him,
and he sat
upon him.
[8] And many spread their garments
in the way:
and others
cut down boughs from the trees, and strewed them in the way.
[9] And they
that went before
and they that followed,
cried, saying:
Hosanna,
blessed is he
that cometh
in the name of the Lord.
[10] Blessed
be the kingdom of our father David
that cometh

Yes I have noticed and read some of them, I thought I would participate further more. If I offended you, I am deeply sorry.

Dont worry about it. I think it must be Jensens time of the month.

cmon now Mr jensen, regardless of the plethora of anti catholic threads on ats, you cant say that this wasnt a well presented and well researched
piece of work.
Well done OP.
ps Jensen, i love your dog.

I recommend any Atlas of papal and Vatican history that is not authored by the Vatican. You will also find many information regarding all of what is
presented here using Google. Here is what the BBC said about the crimen sollicitationis: news.bbc.co.uk... .
It would be irellevant to give you my own sources from books I have here at homes or texts written in another language than English.

Actually, I'm not shocked by the things you mention. I don't mean to sound flip, but we all know that over 2,000 years, and many different cultures
and political and military situations, we're going to get a wide variety of Popes.

Even Dante put some Popes in his Inferno. And we've had some Popes who were Saints and holy men. Why should I be shocked that you chose some
of the bad ones and put them on display (leaving out any of the good ones)? Every informed Catholic should know that we've had those types of Popes
among the 266 we've had.

The issue of secrecy in the 1965 instructions on how to handle a case? That sounds good to me. That's a particularly sensitive and personal area
for both the claimed victim and offender. Why shout it to the world? I'm sure you noticed that the same document recommended removal from the
priesthood and transfer to an area where the was much less chance of reoffending? That's what the mental health professionals were suggesting at the
time, and even our public schools followed the same procedure.

ParovStelar, the Church has been the home of the greatest thinkers, artists, scientists, and teachers throughout most of it's history. It has been
kindly and loving. It has also been run at times by some men who were very bad. But the Church itself is not bad, why not take a look into it?

I never really thought about the Catholic Church in a favorable light. Mainly due to Constantinople and the Council of Nicea. But that's a
different topic.

Is the gay issue with the journalist a ticking time bomb? I realize that Ratzinger received the letter that he was to give to the next pope, and have
him determine what to do. Is there something pending on this?

Along with the Vatileaks story, Pope Benedict asked 3 Cardinals to further investigate the gay lobby allegations regarding priests and Cardinals of
the Vatican. Benedict resigned after receiving the report, leaving the new Pope to deal with the mess.

All the good things that good Catholic Christians, and everyone else for that matter, do and should be doing are shadowed by the evil at the core of
the foundations on which church built itself up.

And, for most of those past 2000 years the Catholic church enjoyed a cloak of secrecy and hid the evil that resided at the Vatican behind the
ineffable and infallible mystique of being God's representative on earth as an unbroken holy line of men appointed to be "the rock" by Jesus
himself.

Deuteronomy 32:

15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him,
and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.

17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 19 And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of
the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no
faith.

Hello, windword! I've been away on a "vacation" and it's lovely to see you again. As I've said before, I always learn something from you,
let's try again.

What the OP has presented is only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sure you're right. Besides bad Popes, ther have have been bad
Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and lay Catholics. You can't even guess how bad my heart is. If I may repeat an old quote, "The Church isn't a
museum for Saints, it's a hospital for sinners."

All the good things that good Catholic Christians, and everyone else for that matter, do and should be doing are shadowed by the evil at the
core of the foundations on which church built itself up.

Here I'm confused. The Church was built on Jesus, Peter, the other Apostles, the
Martyrs, and the Bible. Where is the "evil" that you're speaking of?

And, for most of those past 2000 years the Catholic church enjoyed a cloak of secrecy and hid the evil that resided at the Vatican behind the
ineffable and infallible mystique of being God's representative on earth as an unbroken holy line of men appointed to be "the rock" by Jesus
himself.

Secrecy? What tremendous secrets have been hidden? Luther announced that the Church needed reform in many ways, and many agreed.
The Church is always under critical scrutiny by the world. If there was an "evil at the core of the foundations." Surely it would have been made
public by now, I must have missed it.

Originally posted by windword
What the OP has presented is only the tip of the iceberg.

Which is what I said. Anyone who has studied church history is well aware of the abuses of power and hypocrisy that have come to the fore over the
centuries. But the non-biased scholars see it as low points that are a part of an overarching positive movement.

And, for most of those past 2000 years the Catholic church enjoyed a cloak of secrecy and hid the evil that resided at the Vatican behind the
ineffable and infallible mystique of being God's representative on earth as an unbroken holy line of men appointed to be "the rock" by Jesus
himself.

No offense, but that sounds like a voiceover for a terrible Dan Brown movie.

The "church" is any number of things. It's the body of believers who believe in the spiritual teachings of Jesus. It is somewhere near 80,000
sects of interpretations. It is, sometimes, a mega tele-evangelical money making machine built on the egos and vanities of people who like to hear
themselves talk and look at themselves in the mirror.

It can be a small group of neighbors who support one another, their community and find inspiration in each other and in Biblical teachings.

The "Vatican" that I refer to is the blood thirsty monster of the past that trampled lands and peoples, slaughtering those who weren't worthy of
salvation or refused to convert. The Vatican is no different than those who rose to power selling opium, trading slaves, pillaging, raping, robbing
and murdering to get "ahead." Many of these people's ancestors still benefit from the land grabs and immoral behavior that got their families to
great worldly heights.

Because the Royal family of England, for example, has rotten roots, that doesn't mean the people of their "Common Wealth" are evil, but the office
of their royalty is evil to the core. Same with the Vatican. Through the history of their actions, some of which are only now becoming common
knowledge, in my opinion, they have lost their right to claim to be the earthly representation of "Christ."

Thanks for your effort in clearing things up for me. I appreciate your kindly patience.

The "church" is any number of things. I agree. Because of the title of the thread and the comments thereafter, I was taking
"church" to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm sure you're not surprised that I see the Vatican, and the leadership of the Church, a little differently from you. I'm more inclined to say
that the Church itself is good, but the men given vast authority have sometimes, but not most of the time, misused it.

"Blood thirsty monster?" Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? I suppose you'd remind us of the Crusades, and the Inquisition, but those can be debated
as to whether they were "blood thirsty" or religiously driven. But besides those, what massive killings, supported by the Church and her teachings,
were there?

I'm also a little concerned about the "rotten roots" idea. What were the rotten roots which were apparent in the first, oh, say, thousand
years?

Can this rotten roots idea be taken further? How about any country based on Mohammed's ideas? Perhaps the Asian countries based on Genghis Khan are
rotten? Any country that was owned, colonized, or controlled by Britain? That would include India, parts of Africa, heck, parts of the whole world.
Did Hitler come from a country with rotten roots?

they have lost their right to claim to be the earthly representation of "Christ."

I'm not sure that's the claim. I don't know of
any Christian, Catholic or otherwise, who claims to be a good representation of Christ on Earth. Great goal, but rarely if ever, achieved.

He set up a Church and put a traitor to the cause at it's head. He told him to take care of the people who come to the Church and bring others in
who don't know of it. Basically, "Get everybody you can into heaven." Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't, but that's the job
description.

Yes, you've done a good job of making your position clear. Again, I thank you sincerely for telling me about it.

"Blood thirsty monster?" Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? I suppose you'd remind us of the Crusades, and the Inquisition, but those can be debated
as to whether they were "blood thirsty" or religiously driven. But besides those, what massive killings, supported by the Church and her teachings,
were there?

Blood thirsty? Religiously driven? They were full out wars on nations and humanity for control of the world. Then you have the war on women, who, if
they got out of line or spoke up, were called witches and dealt with. The "Church" would love to have kept it up, but they had to put on the cloak
of civility while under that cloak they were entertaining altar boys.

As I said before, if Jesus came back he'd be overturning much more than tables when he visited the "new Temple" in Roma dedicated to his legacy.

And what are the positive things they have done? If they are so positive, why do they need a military or spy wing of their organisation who have been
accused of committing some of the worst atrocities in modern history? Instead of going to Africa and offering prayers, why don't they offer the poor
and need y some of their ridiculous amount of wealth? They are nothing but a corporation, possibly the God of corporations. The only difference is
instead of selling products, they pass a tin around on a Sunday and make a false prophet.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.